Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Posts

    3667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    112

whYNOT last won the day on January 1

whYNOT had the most liked content!

6 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    South Africa; "Where liberty dwells, there is my country
  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    SouthAfrica
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Real Name
    tony
  • Occupation
    photography,reading,writing

Recent Profile Visitors

13244 profile views

whYNOT's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

343

Reputation

  1. I was fascinated by those sophomoronic experiments which were prevalent on Youtube about 10 years ago, supposedly discounting the freedom of will. Something involving the wired-up test subject reacting to lights on a screen and pressing a button, thus 'showing' that the relevant part of his brain responded a split second before he made his physical selection--i.e. his brain 'informed' him which button to press. i.e. no free will: His act was "determined". What? As if the brain will not in every instance show activity prior to and during activities. As if the brain is pre-programmed deterministically to "cause" one's actions in any and all encounters outside the lab environment. I recall the young host of the show was thrilled by these superficial findings. He concluded (consistently) that no free will means nothing you do can be held against you legally or morally by others, equally that you do not need to take yourself to task for some failing. A great relief for the amoral. More, the personal choices of undertaking effortful thinking and character building can be dispensed with. Then the individual mind will be under attack. The result, individualism will succumb to collectivism-tribalism-racism (major determining antecedent - "ancestral" - factors used often to claim power through past 'victimhood') and self-esteem and pride must suffer since one also cannot be responsible for one's accomplishments. If no-free-will has arrived in the broader mainstream the world is heading for trouble, I thought. Sure enough - what we are seeing today. One can count on human nature to take the easy options. Free will demands far too much awareness and thinking work. While valuable in their own area, the neuroscientists (I refer to the popular Sam Harris, notably, who also, I gather, consistently eliminated "the mind" together with free will) have something to be responsible for bringing about this age of pronounced determinism/skepticism. (But who would expect proponents of determinism to take "responsibility" for anything they do? They had no other choice. Or was it due to your free will, Sam?).
  2. The very slight, moral as well as political, cultural, distinctions between Ukraine and Russia is the main reason I've been a peacenik about "the war that ought not have happened". Abuses on both sides (with Ukraine: the NON-democratic change of regime, the cultural-political repression of Russian-Ukrainians and subsequent civil war, the stifling and imprisonment of dissenters, banning of the Russian Orthodox Church, breaking negotiated deals and so on) have me umimpressed. For all that, for reasons one can only infer, the West applauded their poster child Z, lent the conflict its sanction and upheld Ukraine to be the Savior of Europe--at Ukraine's predictably terrible cost--and vilified Russia alone. Who would you prefer to "go to bat for" (at massive expense and unthinkable potential risks) ? Answer: neither.
  3. A few more are sitting up and taking notice of a glaring anomaly, the 'numbers' given are those accepted without question from - a Jihadi terror group and its supporters, from whom the disingenuous claim of 'genocide' originates, the 'numbers' fuelling the lie - picked up and promoted with glee by sundry Judeophobes. Too late this Newsweek piece, the slander was popularly embedded in the first days after Oct7, in advance of the first Gazan casualties. But I notice a level of panic setting in, Hamasophile writers and Tubers and mass activists are not getting their way as expected in saving the remnants of their adulated hero-killers with "humanitarian ceasefire" demands - this time the IDF shows it will not cave to global sentiment and is committed to going all the way. (The huger threat is the Hezbollah Army's coordinated attack in the North, holding back, waiting to see what happens there, and why Israel must wrap up the Gaza war quickly). This is "existential" self-preservation for Israel (for any who are concerned). https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/world/a-more-accurate-accounting-of-the-war-in-gaza-opinion/ar-BB1ka9IG?rc=1&ocid=socialshare&cvid=fa1e2985647b4284842206f5d0432e0e&ei=11
  4. One would think so. I'm not one of those calling for such a declaration, especially one justified to 'help Israel' (which will fight its own regional battles, hopefully without interference) but for "calibrated" retaliation against any "clear and present danger", such as the intolerable attacks on international shipping by the Houthis which the US led consortium has firmly responded to and has to permanently stop. I believe Iran is "testing the waters", so to speak, seeing how far they can push the West through its proxy terror groups while avoiding confrontation. They must be met resolutely on an ad hoc basis while not (yet) maximally. https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/2024-03-16/live-updates-792187
  5. A return to clarity, by a proper expert on urban warfare. Increasing dismissal of the "numbers" put out by the Gazan Ministry of Death. Nothing new, Hamas' strategy was all-dependent on large civilian casualties, real or fictional, to "win" the political war.
  6. Monart, here's a link to Brownstone Institute and their many articles https://brownstone.org/ the gold standard for all things pandemic, good science, optimal health and freedom-orientated, fronted by the heroic Jeffrey Tucker ("Liberty or Lockdown?"). They have been my bright reference point
  7. "Prevarication" = non-stop lying and distraction It's your minds they own. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-ukraine-war-runs-on-lies/
  8. You could do with some education on the false alternative/dichotomy. The fanatical (Western) propaganda is which made for: either "pro-Putin" OR "Slava Ukraini!" Like children's games, with us or against us. Third way, for/against neither - and an early negotiations route to a peaceable resolution. They and their triumphalist indoctrinating of a "weak Russia" have (predictably) got Ukrainians killed in masses with Russia still solidly unbudged from its positions inside Ukraine, so, so much for pretending to be "for" Ukrainians. It was a murderously callous war policy foisted on the people. It makes one wonder just how little were leaders and populations caring "for Ukraine", and how much more hating/fearing of Russians. Obviously, exposed now is the rank failure of (colluding, censoring) western propaganda up against reality. "Putinist propaganda", I've said, was much more bluntly realistic. Still in denial, the Western govt's won't admit their deceptions and failure. They will keep doubling down.
  9. An interview that's long overdue - why? Perhaps because one like it reaching a large audience could have earlier curtailed this war. Yaron was morally appalled with Tucker. But that's what professional journalists must do: find us information, motivations, objectives, etc. - approve of the interviewees (and interviewer) or not. And two years of the one-sided and brushed-under info keeping Westerners semi-informed to promote and extend an avoidable war at Ukraine's final cost, has been horribly wrong. "Judge, and..." when you know the basic FACTS. Which most still don't. YB https://youtu.be/tF79RI7_cGA?si=I1pJoW208HICPOXF and Redacted: https://youtu.be/EcpHS0qBuOk?si=lOiqRY6V0M7LCyVu
  10. The urgent imperative to maintain NATO’s nuclear deterrence "The dismal performance of Russia’s conventional forces in the early days of the war in Ukraine risks convincing some in NATO that the future Russian threat to the Alliance can be deterred primarily via NATO’s conventional superiority, and that enhancing deterrence of Russian nuclear use in a future conflict is therefore no longer a high priority. This is a dangerous fallacy". Well, no. All wrong. The "dismal performance" by Russia in the first months is fully predicated upon a belief in total 'invasion' that the West saw (or pretended to see and promoted). I.E. The Russian comprehensive conquest of Ukraine--and countries beyond Ukraine. The fact of the matter - as any proper military analyst could tell: this was never remotely likely, with the size of the initial Russian force and other factors. The 'invasion' was a police action by a small expeditionary force to show Russia was deadly serious and was intended to drive Zelensky to negotiations. It worked, Z agreed to security/neutrality concessions, until Boris Johnson intervened: The fighting must go on. (And none of this intervention was publicly exposed until much later when there was no going back ). Only months after did the forces get increased by 300k men in Russia's mobilization when it became apparent there would not be talks allowed by the West and full war would go ahead. Shrewd of NATO. An organization based on mutual self-defence, which had no hostile enemy to 'defend' against for 30 years and may as well have packed up, finally rediscovered its raison d'etre and mojo by goading Russia into ITS self-defense. "We told you Russia would try to rise again!!". Vindicated at last. Because wherever or who you are, no citizen nor leaders will abide the permanent threats of ICBM's parked just over your border and your neighbor transformed into a huge military (NATO) arsenal. Europe may fool themselves they are safer now; I think NATO's "nuclear deterrence" escalation signal has made things distinctly unsafe. They continue beating the same drum to instill fear and obedience into Europe. To date, acting without knowledge of Putin/Russia's objectives (and non-objectives) and making false assumptions, because officials are too high and mighty to meet and talk.
  11. Israel's critics hoped there would be an order to end the war and withdraw the IDF. https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-783874 A PR victory, a pro forma rap on the knuckles. I venture the judges are awake to the repetitive, plain-as-day Hamas strategy a) incite the war and the inevitable IDF backlash b) which, in those difficult conditions, predictably brings about many civilian deaths (real/fabricated) and the misery of displaced Gazans c) the reliable international outcry would have Israel censured and ordered to withdraw. d) Hamas survives to do it again. A terror gang gains recognition from the Hague... In the mean time, the pathetic SA Govt is celebrating international attention for its upstanding moral stance, and no doubt, the several million dollars donated to ANC's private coffers from Qatar.
  12. Aiding, sponsoring, encouraging? Placing was imprecise. There was then as now a reasonable argument for fresh political opposition to the PA. A one-party system will become autocratic-dictatorial, and for sure Israel intended to play one off against the other. But I find no malicious intent. Hamas presented themselves to be a tamer organization to begin with, it appears. The neo-mystics and consequentialists will accuse or belittle the Israel Govt. for promoting Hamas (unknowing of its later character), so "deserving" what occurred. If not also for planning for Hamas to brutally attack, which is pretty sick. (it is a small, very tight society, and for all their differences, the bulk of Israelis are unified in esteem for their country and lives, and insist on loudly arguing with each other and constantly criticizing their Gvt. So the logistical magnitude of an Oct 7 "conspiracy" involving many people of all positions, indisputably would have been very shortlived, publicly exposed and condemned.
×
×
  • Create New...